IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,4/10
1286
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuIn 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.In 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.In 1892, two vaudevillians and petty con artists get involved, together with the most notorious bank robber, in a New York City bank heist.
Empfohlene Bewertungen
This film is one of those films in which the elements fail to come together. It is clearly an attempt to recreate the lightning in a bottle of The Sting some years earlier. However it does not measure up for a number of reasons.
Firstly the truly boring title does the film no favours. It is not surprising the audience stayed away despite this having obvious star power. Like The Sting the main stars are a couple of con men. The comedy is very broad, almost slapstick at times. This tends to undermine any tension in the film. And I'm not convinced that either Caan or Gould have any aptitude for this kind of broad comedy (and neither, I think, do they, if their subsequent career moves are an indication).
However, there are certain times when nastiness creeps in, the most obvious example is when Gould is locked in a safe. Yes, that's comedy gold, having a man almost suffocate to death.
Not only are the con men much more buffoonish than in The Sting, but they are also more contemptible. When we first see them, they are stealing money from ordinary members of the public. Why on earth would we be sympathetic to their escapades from then on? While in The Sting the objective was to rob another (and worse) villain, here the target is a normal bank containing real people's money. An attempt to show the manager as corrupt and lecherous does not undermine the fact that the bank contains real people's money and at a time when banks could go out of business.
Ultimately, no one really cares about these two thieves and whether they succeed in their venture.
Firstly the truly boring title does the film no favours. It is not surprising the audience stayed away despite this having obvious star power. Like The Sting the main stars are a couple of con men. The comedy is very broad, almost slapstick at times. This tends to undermine any tension in the film. And I'm not convinced that either Caan or Gould have any aptitude for this kind of broad comedy (and neither, I think, do they, if their subsequent career moves are an indication).
However, there are certain times when nastiness creeps in, the most obvious example is when Gould is locked in a safe. Yes, that's comedy gold, having a man almost suffocate to death.
Not only are the con men much more buffoonish than in The Sting, but they are also more contemptible. When we first see them, they are stealing money from ordinary members of the public. Why on earth would we be sympathetic to their escapades from then on? While in The Sting the objective was to rob another (and worse) villain, here the target is a normal bank containing real people's money. An attempt to show the manager as corrupt and lecherous does not undermine the fact that the bank contains real people's money and at a time when banks could go out of business.
Ultimately, no one really cares about these two thieves and whether they succeed in their venture.
This is not gonna be a review more like a comment... This movie was not one of the best I've ever seen but because of this movie I exist. My parents were in this movie and met for the first time. This prison is in my hometown. Because of this movie and my parents' ability to be extras, (specifically my dad who looked like Robert Redford from Jeremiah Johnson), they moved in together after 4 days. 46 years later they are still married! Ted Cassidy actually walked up to my dad and called him Bob because he thought he was Robert Redford! How cool is that! You can actually see both my parents in their respective roles in this movie especially my dad as he has a kid on his shoulders in the beginning right up against the prison wall.
A thoroughly well-made and well-paced movie, with a wonderful score, both in the lead characters' signature song "Nobody's Perfect" and in the incidental music. James Caan and Elliot Gould do a great job of playing the low comedy foils of high comedy master Michael Caine.
Excellent for kids, too...although there are touches of violence, romance, and illegal behavior, they are all mild, and it's got a delightfully old-fashioned morality to it.
Excellent for kids, too...although there are touches of violence, romance, and illegal behavior, they are all mild, and it's got a delightfully old-fashioned morality to it.
Made on the HELLO DOLLY set, this bumbling farce looks sensational and in some ways is actually as lush as DOLLY itself. With a spectacular cast and some very funny lines - and especially the genuinely hilarious NOBODY'S PERFECT song - H&W somehow just misses being really really good. Any opportunity to see Carol Kane on screen is a must. Barely released in 1976 this film is worth seeing in glorious widescreen, just for the visuals around the DOLLY set. It actually looks as though you will see Streisand singing somewhere in the background. It is probably the only two million dollar film with a three million dollar set. Deserving of a lavish DVD release it could easily become a collectors item for many reasons...if only the comedy was genuinely one of them. The ideas are all there and the cast and the lushness, but you just fell it is all a bit forced.
"Harry and Walter Go to New York" is growing on me. It's not as good as it should have been but it does have a lot going for it. The cast is very good and they all do a nice job. The set design and the costumes are top-notch. But for some reason, "Harry and Walter..." doesn't work as well as it should have. Sometimes a movie's production values and smother it's humor. I think that might have happened here. Also, especially in the first half, the editing seemed off. A lot of the jokes were ruined with too quick cutaways. That said, I do enjoy a lot of this movie. It's not a total write-off. It's definitely worth watching.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThis movie went massively overbudget and caused such a major cash crisis that Columbia Pictures nearly went out of business, until a fund of German dentists, Cinerenta, agreed to help co-finance the studio's other movies.
- PatzerMost of the male characters in the film have 1970's long hairstyles or Afros which were not accepted or socially acceptable in the late Nineteenth Century.
- Zitate
Chatsworth: Adam, where'd you find those two oafs?
Adam Worth: Oh, they're not oafs, Jack. They would require practice to become oafs.
- Crazy CreditsShang Draper's Stained Glass Panels Based on Works of Alfonse Mucha
- VerbindungenReferenced in Saturday Night Live: Eric Idle/Neil Innes (1977)
- SoundtracksI'm Harry, I'm Walter
(uncredited)
Music by David Shire
Lyrics by Alan Bergman and Marilyn Bergman
Performed by James Caan and Elliott Gould
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Harry and Walter Go to New York?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprachen
- Auch bekannt als
- Harry and Walter Go to New York
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 7.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen